This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Originally Posted by Karl

This is off topic, but when you share in the benefits obtained by others who did pay to obtain and maintain those benefits, should you also not pay if you are able to do so?

If you do not want to pay, then shouldn't the honest thing to do is not partake of those benefits? (in this case, that union job). If you don't want a union, don't take a union job -- try Wal-Mart or the local Quickie Mart, they've got good wages benefits too

Hate to burst your bubble, but there are a lot of good paying jobs that aren't union.
But, you knew that.

Seriously. Using violence and the threat of violence to take money from others is wrong.....

Unless you do it in a union.

How does that make sense. ?

It doesn't make sense because it's a strawman.

Originally Posted by cpwill

I think you are thinking of "freeriders". People who come in and work are called "employees". People who do so while a union is busy throwing a fit about something are derisively called "scabs", but they aren't taking advantage of the Union's benefits, but rather of its stupidity and damage.

Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Well, according to the Conservative definition they are "takers"; accepting union benefits without contributing to the cost of obtaining those benefits.

Now were they needy then I could perhaps see giving them a pass on paying their fair share, but no case is made to that effect.

You do realize that those benefits don't come from the union, but from the employer right? The union may have negotiated the benefits, but it is the employer that provides them. All the union does is take from the employees. I've worked in both union shops and non-union shops. I can tell you from personal experience that management treats their employees far better in a non-union shop than they do in a union shop. I've had far better benefits in a non-union setting than I ever got from a union setting and I worked for one one of the largest corporations in America who happens to be unionized.

Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Originally Posted by sangha

If she's on disability now, she's probably paid taxes in the past.

She was born blind and has never had a job where she paid taxes. You are jumping to conclusions based on incorrect assumptions and you still haven't answered the question I posed earlier. But hats off to you for sticking with the liberal/progressive playbook of divert, divert, divert.

She doesn't pay any sales tax? Come on, Maggie... some posts in this thread are part of a fast-and-furious mission to deceive, don't get caught up in the whirlwind . . . . .She doesn't pay any sales tax? Come on, Maggie... some posts in this thread are part of a fast-and-furious mission to deceive, don't get caught up in the whirlwind . . . . .